Viral YouTube videos

Although we have talked about it in class many times previously, I have been noticing more and more that you can't only watch one video on Youtube when you intend to. With their related links and similar videos, it is almost like you go on it and then lose the next hour of your life to the site. It really is a brilliant concept, after it became so popular, it not only became an easy medium to share content desired to be viewed, but also a major ad site. They are advertising more on the site than they used to, now with each video an ad pops up at the bottom of it that you can close, however, it takes up a good sized portion of the screen so the viewer can't really miss it. It is also a good site for word to spread about up and coming bands, comedians, songs, etc. Many comedians have used Youtube as a tactic for them to become more popular, the trick is to post small and incomplete clips and make the viewer want to watch more and learn more about the comedian. One comedian that has done this successfully is Russell Peters. It was a great struggle for him because he was the first of his kind, an Indian comedian. He attributes word of mouth via youtube as a major contribution to his rise in popularity after working so hard for over 10 years, youtube sped the process up and got him to a point that he wanted to be in his career.

However, there are strict lessons to be learned from Youtube. As a provider of the ability to view the content, they are a safe harbor of sorts and can not be sued directly for any copyright infringement, however, if they do not take videos down that they have been notified to take down, they can be sued. The copyright infringement notices have become ridiculous, in my opinion. The artist formerly known as Prince, sued a woman for posting a video that she wished to share with her friends and family of her 10 month old child dancing to one of his songs. The audio in the video was not even distinguishable, apart from the title of the video including the song title. It was claimed that it infringed on his marketability, although he is an old artist that doesn't market products anymore. This is just one example of how with Youtube, copyright cases have increased, and continue to; there are now companies that employ an entire department solely devoted to searching for such copyright infringements. It is a flawed system, and some type of legislation should be finalized about it, limiting such cases as this mother showing her dancing son.

Shield law defines journalist and now provides protection for web journalists

The Free Flow of Information Act of 2009, which has passed through the House and the Senate and still pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee (to be decided on shortly) finishes with a definition of who qualifies as a journalist and would therefore qualify for coverage under the law. The original definition was that of a reporter being someone who was covered under the shield law, was a writer who wrote with the purpose of disseminating the news with significant financial gain. However, the legislation has gone through several remedies, some of which were those to the definitions as paraphrased above. The act now will provide protection for online journalists, which we have found to not normally be the case in most other aspects of business it is a struggle for the independent, online media spectrum to be acknowledged as more than bloggers or for others to recognize it as a skilled profession, just as print is, but with a different medium. The bill was also changed to provide protection to independent journalists that don't necessarily make an income because they are possibly starting a new independent outlet, or perhaps just providing content to such an outlet, like many do as part of the Huffington Post. However, the Free Flow of Information act now takes into account different aspects of the indy media realm. This can be seen as a large step, although smaller town governments still provide harsher terms and don't accept independent bloggers, the federal government has at least put parameters in place for the larger government (federal government) to not only acknowledge it, but put it on the same playing field as the traditional mainstream media.

Journalism students studying business

It is interesting to think of how many journalists have started their own successful businesses, in order to do this it is necessary to have some kind of background in business or finance. Does this make it worth journalism students studying economics or business? It is debatable if it would help more journalists successfully launch an independent blog. In many schools, this thought process isn't thought about. I wouldn't have to plan out a prospectus for a business down to the finer details dealing with developing a revenue stream, and how to sustain the media organization. It can be difficult finding that niche to get you started, so many are politics now a days that it is hard to compete. The article by Jeff Jarvis is interesting because it presents the argument that many wouldn't think of when dealing with developing a new media organization. This is the idea that it shouldn't be unique, in order for it to thrive, there has to be some competition, so people can better interpret the content of certain sites as compared to others. However, it is a perfect balance of sorts, because with too much competition, you could just as easily get buried, especially in comparison to much larger entities such as the Huffington Post, which covers multiple niches, although mainly the politics spectrum.

It requires a lot of thought, but the creativity and effort put into it is clear to work towards one's benefit in the long run.

Net Neutrality

Net neutrality seems to becoming more and more of an issue. Who would've thought that competition would get so intense and companies would want to further their own interests so much that they would censor what can and can't be seen on the internet? Some are said to believe that no new legislation is needed to fix the issue, while others say that it is. Those who believe that no corrective action is needed insist that a free market will regulate itself and therefore not need regulation, it would be unneeded regulation to some. Others believe that having a free market in the first place is what developed such competition and censorship amongst the internet. Big corporations are transferring into the internet, just has had previously happened in the print media. Corporations are placing their agenda and political views above their service to their consumers. Legislation is needed to regulate this, who is to say it would stop on its own, just as it started on its own. It has developed into a bigger issue, prior to this year, many may have not even known what the concept of net neutrality is, however, now it seems as though it is increasingly urgent.

Journalists with an agenda or bloggers?

There has been speculation in a blog that "Transparency is the new objectivity". The author states that many journalists have in fact objective, while it is bloggers that have an agenda that they project onto their readers through their lack of objectivity. This isn't exactly accurate to me, because it is always obvious that the mainstream has a bias through the corporations that own the publications. While the bloggers both report the news that needs to be reported while also making a statement about it.

The article is interesting in that it links objectivity and transparency to print versus online, where links are possible. The author says that it is easier to state an agenda through the links that explain how that conclusion was reached. While in print, the only way remotely close to do so is though footnotes, which can be time consuming and not effective in the end because some don't read them, etc.

"Objectivity without transparency increasingly will look like arrogance. And then foolishness. Why should we trust what one person — with the best of intentions — insists is true when we instead could have a web of evidence, ideas, and argument?"

This was an interesting quote, it seems as though in itself, it project arrogance and foolishness.

New York Post corruption

We all remember the New York Post cartoon controversy in which the writer of Obama's stimulus package was portrayed as a chimpanzee. Now an editor of the NY Post that was fired for speaking out about the ordeal is suing the Post. Many more horror stories of sorts are now coming out via the fired employee. Accusations of being forced to look at sexual images, endure racist and sexist comments as well as being required to follow the Posts agenda rather than what may have been more important at any given time. Other allegations include plots of destroying President Obama, not only were the sexist comments and misogynistic attitudes endured, but the hiring and firing habits of the publication were also directly related to the racist attitudes and needs of the Post. Corruption in the mainstream media can be found anywhere. Sandra Guzman, the fired employee, also says that sexual favors were traded in for job promotions, along with other allegations that could have a profound impact in terms of embarrassment and damages to the Post.

Is this a question of the bitterness of Guzman from being fired for speaking her mind, or are the allegations true? Either way, just from the information leaking out, whether it is true or not, many have most likely already indicted the New York Post in their minds because of the harsh statements made.

Standard journalistic practices

Speaking of citizen journalists not acknowledging something as simple as standard journalistic practices, Mayhill Fowler was one such person. I am not an accurate judge to say what exactly are standard journalistic practices are, but she was fully aware that she had given Bill Clinton the wrong impression of who she was. She didn't say that she was a journalist or that she was recording, although it is not required by law. She says that she held her recorder in plain sight in her hand, however, it could have looked like any number of things and her hand may not have been prominent enough to be noticed, she could have had it hanging down by her side with her recorded clutched in it, etc, we don't know.

The story that developed was one of considerable weight, however, which could possibly justify the questionable means used to develop it. It is evident that Clinton is a public figure, and as such, he has public importance and prominence, which leaves him vulnerable to such events occurring, in this instance it was just an example of one abusing this vulnerability. From the recording, it wasn't that a normal conversation was started and then turned to the topic of the reporter who wrote the article. Fowler spoke to him with the intent of getting such a reaction out of him. I don't feel as though it can be completely OK when it is taken out of context like that.

Undercover reporting has always been questionable and doubted by many. In saying that, it is very hard to form a judgement one way or the other in this situation as to whether Fowler should have had more remorse or hesitation with the situation, because she seemed to be quite the opposite and was very proud of her accomplishment in recording such a statement from the former president.

No more journalism school

It has seemed to be a recurring theme since Kate Sheppard spoke in class as well as before, but becoming more prominent, that going to a place of higher education to study journalism is no longer relevant. Instead, it is more important to pick an area of high public interest such as a prominent issue within politics or civil rights and to become an expert on that, while becoming a good writer is more of an add on later or to come after experience is gained. This made me wonder if the 4 years at about $45,000 a year to go to study journalism is indeed irrelevant. I would like to think that if applying for a job, I am more highly considered than someone who has a random nonsense degree with one area of specialty. I feel as though I have learned some things about society that your average person wouldn't become savvy too such as consumer behaviors, the past of the media, where it is going from the prospective of people involved with it. I have gained the views of those that were also educated in journalism along with their insights on how their education has helped them.

I feel it is important to have an area of specialty, however, that doesn't make journalism school irrelevant and no longer needed. There will always be factors that determine what makes things news or what doesn't, society will always have tics and quirks that are worth studying throughout the media. Saying that you only need to be privy to one specialty says that anyone could become a journalist, very similar to citizen journalism. However, with such a broad spectrum of what can make one a journalist or set them apart from one another, subject matters would become over crowded, although in some ways competition may be increased.

It is also brings up the issue of standard journalistic practices and other terms that are thrown around in courts quite frequently. How would one necessarily know or be aware of something (as basic as it may be) as journalistic practices? One cannot be a lawyer without a law degree, yet journalism is much different? Perhaps I am more critical because of my current status as a student of journalism, however, there are many things that if one did not study journalism, they would have to teach themselves on their own, while they can already become an expert in any given area simply by reading much about it; there isn't necessarily much education needed.

HuffPost bold advertising

It is always interesting to look at the advertisements on the Huffington Post, although I am not exactly savvy on all of the methods in which the site attains revenue, their choice of advertisements is definitely eclectic and vast. Currently the site has an ad that takes up the entire top of the page, and is interesting in that it acts almost as a backdrop for the title of the site, which seems to be a very bold move, it isn't boxed in, but has become part of the site, at least temporarily. The advertisement is for an HBO special with Will Ferrell.

While I thought it was interesting that the New York Times had not one but three advertisements on an independent media outlet's home page, I now realize with this advertisement that it is part of the style of the site to include the same main advertisement three times throughout the page. Once is very large and eye popping at the top of the page, including above the title of the site, while the other two are as you scroll down so you essentially can't be viewing the page without also viewing this advertisement. Redundant? I think it doesn't provide for any type of diversity for the site in terms of what you see at a glance. It may be successful advertising because one cannot help but to read it one of the three times that it is seen, however, it seems as though it isn't necessarily a popular design strategy because it takes up such space on the front page for all the same thing.

Producing movies for the internet

The future of the world seems to be on the internet, the production of movies online that lessens production costs furthers this theory. The article talks about how people are willing to watch movies on their small ipod screen and such because it is less expensive than going to the (increasingly expensive) movie theaters. It becomes a win-win situation of sorts because it is cheaper for movie producers to make movies for the web, while it is also less expensive for the consumers to watch them offline. However, the recurring factor with the online phenomena continues to be that there is a crowd that isn't happy with just online, just as with the news and newspapers transforming into website form, and bloggers, which are only online rising in popularity. Some predict that newspapers will always exist because of such a crowd that prefers to read it in print rather than sitting in front of a computer screen that can hurt your eyes after a certain amount of time, while some also believe that you digest what you are reading more from a newspaper. Therefore, it only makes sense that movies will remain the same way, however, it is definitely noteworthy that it is more than just the news that is making the online fad widespread.

Internet for Obama

In an article featuring many beliefs of Arianna Huffington, she says that without the viral nature of the internet, Barack Obama may not have been elected president. Obama has created what can be deemed as a group of followers via the internet, by sending out emails, linking to his website, which was very useful during the campaign. This enabled Obama to target a specific crowd online by easily accessing people. The internet takes away any postage costs from sending campaign information through snail mail, while also being able to reach a wider audience at the same time. Not only did Obama use the internet in his campaign, but he is continuing to draw support through the medium throughout his presidency. He has published a website with information regarding health care and such that can be controversial, putting up testimonials in favor of the health care reform. He is keeping the citizens well informed, while also being persuasive, in a noninvasive fashion.

Arianna also said that the internet is a self-correcting system, as a result of the ease of widespread rumors and falsities. It was easy for his followers to put information on the web countering false or incriminating information of Obama concerning things such as Reverend Wright, or rumors of him being an angry black man and a socialist Muslim.

Arianna says that without the internet, none of this would have happened and Obama may well just as easily not been elected president, although one could form the argument that it was a realigning election in favor of the Democrats, the internet may have eased this process.

This also leads to the subject of the internet also easing the formation of independent blogging sites, such as Josh Marshall and TalkingPointsMemo. Marshall utilized much of the information put online regarding the firings of District Attorneys across the country, which then led to his blog bringing down Attorney General Gonzalez after discovering they others were fired for not directly catering to the views of the Bush administration. TPM is now one of the most successful independent blogs and is hiring more people than they have ever had in the past. All of this was possible through the internet. The internet created a different business model for bloggers to begin, unlike in the past, where it was near impossible to start a new print outlet.

Censorship vs. too much information

After reading the articles for class and learning about how the media can censor itself and other forms of media (like Google) can censor other outlets either directly or indirectly, I thought about the paradox that exists with the media. There seems to always or quite frequently be a debate concerning the media in regards to how they get their information, at least there is a debate to me. For example, in the recent and ongoing case involving an IC grad having an affair with an older man at her internship, I can't help but wonder how the news organizations got some of their information such as pictures, and what makes it exactly (or close to) ethical to publish it? Some even have letters that were given to the police, written by Brook (the IC grad) to the family of the man she had an affair with, Steve Phillips. Again, how does information such as this leak out to the media?

On the other end of the spectrum, there are many websites essentially being blocked by powerhouses such as Google, by not allowing any search results to contain links to any given website that they have essentially "blocked". So essentially, many don't know that the site exists unless it is linked to in another website. It is interesting in comparison, either the media shares too much information that could have possibly been gotten by questionable practices that no one seems to question, or the media isn't popular because of such censorship as stated above.

Kate Sheppard

We all know that when we graduate, we will have a hard time getting into the industry, but it always comes in doses of reality of just how hard it could be. Hearing such experiences coming from an IC student is reassuring. It was interesting hearing about the struggles of a section of the industry that is reportedly growing, but still finding dead ends in terms of access and being deemed as actual news gathering organizations and publications, as also demonstrated by the previous issue with Lake Owego.

Hearing about how many publications have encountered hardships with access was almost shocking to me. Even publications like The Nation and NPR having some difficulties, although eventually succeeding, in terms of access issues seems extreme because of their well-established reputation and how long they have been prosperous. However, everything changes once it is discovered that it is a nonprofit organization. What makes this into such a big deal? With nonprofits there is much less room, if any, for issues with accountability and corruption, with this in mind, there is no higher corporate power to stop them from exposing other corruptions within the government both at state and federal level like there is with the mainstream (for profit) media. Could this be a possible reason?

It can be very intimidating, but at the same time fascinating learning about all of the different possibilities out there, it is just a matter of searching and finding one that is write for any given niche if so desired. Such as different publications to freelance with while working at another.

Bloggers aren't part of the news media?

According to restrictions attempting to be put in place in some places such as Lake Oswego, bloggers don't have the right to sit in on a City Council meeting. Although there was no definition of the news media to Lake Oswego, they have no drafted one, after asking Mark Bunster, a local blogger to leave.

Aspects of the organization must establish themselves in order for them to fit under the desired policy at Lake Oswego, such as being "institutionalized", "well-established" and producing at least 25 percent news content. The latter is something that can actually be monitored, but the others are very subjective. What defines an organization being institutionalized and well-established? Many people have many different standards to such things. Many bloggers may not be as established as the New York Times or any other given local corporate newspaper, it becomes an interesting paradox that Lake Oswego actually puts measurements in place that could keep bloggers in a level lower than they are capable of reaching. In the drafted policy of who can be defined as the news media, they state that there must be regular reporting on the city council. This reminds me of the old saying in reference to employment that you can't get a job until you have experience and you can't get experience until you get a job. The second stipulation is that the organization must have multiple people with well defined roles. There is no other way to think of this statement than as an attack towards independent bloggers who haven't been able to establish their blogs yet and are still in the blogging at night in their pajamas stage. Nonetheless, it is an obvious fact that is not just known to journalists that independent media is growing, what reason, therefore, is there to not embrace it?

The final regulation from Lake Oswego is: "Media representatives would be allowed to attend executive sessions if they provide evidence that includes 'proof satisfactory to the City Council that the person is gathering news,' along with a press badge, a recently published news article with their byline or an editor's note on letterhead." This seems like another restrictive guideline towards independent outlets. However, this last stipulation also develops the thought that there should be not just a city level definition of a journalist or news gatherer, but a state level or something of the sort. Not something that would target bloggers, but something to include them and make them considered as journalists, which they are.

HuffPost Advertises for NYT?

From reading the Huffington Post, I found that there are three advertisements for "The Weekender" for the NYT on the front page of the heavily trafficked blog. It seems odd to me not only because they are in two different realms of journalism, those being the mainstream vs. independent outlets, but they are three of the same advertisements (although of different sizes perhaps) on the same page of the website. The advertisements include a link to order as well as a price per week. In a way, I find it ironic, because part of why independents started was because the freedom of what can be published as compared to the mainstream media, and the independent that can be concluded to be one of the most popular is advertising for those that are restricted in what they can publish and those in the "diminishing" sector of journalism, although things can be more complicated that, I feel as though that sums it up in a nutshell. Scrolling down the page, the three ad boxes are positioned so the reader can see them the first three scrolls so to speak down the page.

In terms of revenue, this seems to be under the category of big investors (in the ad sense) which, as discussed in class, could have tendencies of turning an independent blogger site into something that could be manipulated when given a high amount for advertisements when NYT could take their business elsewhere to advertise. At the same time, however, as one of the higher trafficked blogs, NYT is ensuring that a large number of people will not only see their ad, but see it three times, to me someone could skip over an ad when they see it the first time, with a smaller possibility the second time, however, the third time has a higher chance of leaving an impression, or a higher possibility of leaving an impression on the reader whether on a subliminal level or not.

1,000 True Fans to Succeed

1,000 True Fans is all an artist needs to succeed according to this article. The article says that if one has a certain number of true fans, it can mean more than having an even bigger number of "so-so" fans, in a matter of speaking. True fans meaning people who are completely dedicated to purchasing any merchandise you may offer, including shirts, CDs, artwork, attending signings, unveilings, concerts, etc. The kind of diehard fan that is willing to drive 200 miles to see a concert or performance that only lasts a couple of hours.

There are many advantages to this type of system, however, there can be some disadvantages as well. A strong base support, according to the article is said to prevent the artist from following the "long tail" career, meaning that they will be deemed more successful than an artist striving to get by; they will have a strong group of fans to sustain them. Having a considerably smaller amount of fans as compared to the millions that most strive for will allow the artist to follow their own path and still be able to maintain these True Fans. They became True Fans because of a strong liking for what was already being produced, therefore it can be argued that there is no need to change the style or thought processes behind any of it. This may not be the case if they were striving to please a much broader base of fans with a broader interest in their work. This can be compared to the news media. The mainstream media developed a wide range of followers, viewers, subscribers and were under the pressure to please not only them to maintain their interest but as well as the corporations that owned whichever media in question. However, the new and developing independent media blogs and such have not had such pressure, and have started with a much narrower fan base, and have continued to build True Fans from there.

The theory brings forth the question of whether or not True Fans exist. The definition as stated in the article, summarized above, seems very extreme in many cases, and although a fan may be willing to donate a small sum of money in order for that artist to continue to develop their work, does it mean they would continue to do so to continue the success?

We have seen this theory work with bloggers that have now become quite popular. Josh Marshall is the most prominent that comes to mind. He has proven that it can be quite successful for bloggers to attain donations and money ahead of time when promising a certain service in return, in his case the first was covering the New Hampshire primary.

Mark Finklestein

The class lecture by Mark was kind of eyeopening in some ways. Although I have read about issues with revenue and such on blogs and some of it can also be logically deduced, I had never realized exactly how much goes into starting your own independent blog, especially after reading and hearing about so many that have become so successful, because it is far less studied the ones that begin and then don't continue to grow but fade away. Hearing Josh Marshall speak a couple of years ago was also intriguing to me. I was fascinated that readers of such blogs are so willing to donate, just how much money he raised astounded me (around $100,000) which he said was enough to hire a couple of journalists for a year as well as renting an office space. Thinking about things in this direction really shows someone how powerful the independent media sector can be, which can also be a frightening thought for some, especially those involved with mainstream media, or those still relentlessly devoted to it.

Mark's story still portrays success in the independent media industry, although not in some areas. To me, this shows that it is growing and there are opportunities out there even if one or possibly more of your opportunities fails. The advertising realm of independent bloggers I also find intriguing. Not only is journalism taking a step in a different direction, but it opens up another realm of the advertising industry. More and more people are relying on bloggers to deliver the news as well as give them an opinion or translation of the news, that it is becoming a more popular place for advertising, and possibly more effective, which could prove to be a win win situation for bloggers and advertisers.

George Seldes

Seldes worked wonders for the media industry. He proved that it could be successful to work independently and not rely on big corporations for funding and support. Seldes saw firsthand the corruption of the press, or "prostitution of the press" as he called it. More people are aware and more fond of the work I.F. Stone accomplished, after using Seldes as inspiration and talking to him for advice. Seldes was committed to presenting the truth to the public in a way that many thought the mainstream press was also doing at the time. Seldes still lives on in many independent media blogs today. Watching the movie about him and reading the article written after his death proves how inspirational he was to many. He changed the industry more successfully than anyone had before him, and left a lasting impact for future references to many.

Trouble The Water

The luncheon with the directors of the documentary was quite enlightening. I think a lot of people have the image that independent media is so quick to catch on in the public because it is so innovative in comparison to the mainstream which is so censored and scripted, along with brainwashing at times. Hearing of their struggle to get their movie, which finished with such a prestigious award was eye opening that they had to endure so much hardship and rejection and decisions as to how they wanted to get their movie known. They also seemed as though they had such a mission of what they wanted to portray, or a vision in their mind, although none of it was scripted beforehand as they declared. I feel as though this is a major aspect attributable to the independent media spectrum, it is unscripted and unrehearsed, but conveys a clear, concise and somewhat controversial point of view as compared to the mainstream media.

Endowing Newspapers?

I can't help but wonder if such a theory would even be able to sustain newspapers, especially the many that exist around the country. With the example numbers given from the NYT, is a $5 billion endowment really that realistic? The popularity of papers is also decreasing, not just their revenue, therefore, why would people want to donate such large sums of money to keep the paper's running? (besides that it would be tax deductible since it would be considered a non-profit organization). It would still force newspapers to compete against each other, vying for donations from the readers. Although, it may lead to more news practices that the consumers are getting from the independent media, while not reading the mainstream anymore because of it. It would lead the papers away from a corporate background, while also eliminating biases, as regulations with the 501(c)3 groups.

I also found the quote calling the increasingly popular Internet news a "cesspool" of false information and "If Jefferson was right that a well-informed citizenry is the foundation of our democracy, then newspapers must be saved." There are many rumors that newspapers get some of their information from bloggers, as well as vice versa, however, it isn't just a one way street. I don't think it is possible for newspapers to control their bias if endowed by the public as is necessary, I think they would still report what they want to report, which isn't true of the independent media.

Further, I don't think this idea would last, even if it did, I don't think the NYT would be able to collect $5 billion a year for anymore than a year at most. If people have already wanted to stop reading many newspapers, why would they now want to donate them to keep them afloat?

What's Stopping the Mainstream Media?

Perhaps there have been articles or renditions of blogs about the topic in the past, however, I can't help but wonder, if the mainstream media understand their success rates are dropping while those of independent media and bloggers are going up, why do they not change their style? I know the big corporation standpoint of the corporate media has been a huge factor in shaping it what it is today, but why can they still not reinvent their dissemination methods? The independent media have harped on the mainstream for their practices, brainwashing techniques and fallacies in their reporting since they have gained the trust of readers. With this information and movies such as OUTFOXED, the mainstream has not changed a thing. Instead of taking the hits of criticism and changing the ways that are now known to not be liked by the public, they continue with the same practices, apparently hoping public opinion will just magically sway back their way. Even things such as objectivity are now out the window in many news broadcasts, which have been proven to blatantly lie to viewers. When did this become an acceptable media practice? Many wouldn't even realize that such lies exist throughout the shows, they take them to be fact, no matter how ridiculous they may seem, thinking 'what reason would they have to broadcast false information?' Such as the example given last week in class regarding a study done by Tufts University which never indeed existed. Sure you would know if you were interested in the media enough to do research into it, however, the average consumer would not. It is a wonder that the mainstream has gotten to where it is today, especially now that it is a losing position, yet still unwilling to do what is perhaps required to allow them to survive while the independent media sector is growing in popularity.